with saddam captured and the economy fast improving, do you think the democrats are doomed in the 2004 presidential race?
i certainly think so and hope so.
george w, bush for president again.
Don't put the cart before the horse.
As for the comparisons between the JWs and "socialists" why not compare the elitism of the GB to the elitism of capitalist corporations? Or their heavy-handed morals to the conservativism of the Republicans? Or how about...we just not compare them to any political ideology since the comparison will always be a weak one?
Bradley
Great! Now we just need to round up Bush...
Bradley
this from a lecture i heard by an anthropologist:.
"the adequacy of a definition is not to be judged by the group to whom it is applied.
marinate on that for a minute.. bradley
The awful truth about this is that the JWs love to use the following line of reasoning both at the door and, worse yet, in court cases:
"Well, if your really want to know what a group is like you would ask them, wouldn't you? If you really want to know what Jehovah's Witnesses are like -- just ask us!"
That's just downright idiotic. By that line of reasoning someone who really wanted to get to know a candidate for political office should just listen to their ads. The flaw in that thinking is so obvious it doesn't even deserve to be said.
Of course, it would be incorrect to judge a group -- the JWs or others -- simply by the writings of their critics. The thing to do is get all sides of the matter -- critics, the group itself and non-committed third parties. Why doesn't the WT advocate that type of investigation? Again, I think you already know why
Bradley
this from a lecture i heard by an anthropologist:.
"the adequacy of a definition is not to be judged by the group to whom it is applied.
marinate on that for a minute.. bradley
This from a lecture I heard by an anthropologist:
"The adequacy of a definition is not to be judged by the group to whom it is applied."
Marinate on that for a minute.
Bradley
page 2 introduces the 2004 yeartext.. "keep on the watch...prove yourselves ready.
"-----matthew 24:42,44.. consistently,god's word reminds us that jehovah's day will arrive with shocking suddenness.hence,our yeartext for 2004 reflects jesus' deep love for his disciples,whom he wants to preserve through "the great tribulation.
how do we remain spiritually watchful and ready?by allowing nothing to distract us from our study of god's word and from our privileges of sacred service.this yearbook contains many examples of loyal witnesses,who took to heart jesus' loving admonition.may you imitate their faith.. feel free to comment on this introduction to the new yearbook of 2004.. my comment is that they still believe that fear of the great tribulation will still work to keep the rank and file in line.and it is only by our study of god's word ( notice our study is not explained to say,through the interpretation of the governing body ) and from our privileges of sacred service ( again notice,how do they define sacred service,full time ministry ,bethel life,pioneering and door to door work is all a privilege along with meeting attendance is left out ).
When something which is so incredibly improbable to happen -- in this case the "great tribulation" -- it would make sense for the presenter of such an idea to say that it will happen with "shocking suddeness." Marinate on that thought for a minute.
Bradley
some months ago i heard that hillary will be drafted as president at the democratic convention.
well, this is no longer a rumor.
on the hannity & colmes show last night, foxnews, this 'rumor' was confirmed to be true.. the reason for the public silence (not told on the show) but by the rumor mill, is to keep hillary on a low profile, not to create a public stir.
Yeru,
Would you ever vote for a Democrat?
B.
i think some might get the impression that it's not right to express anything critical of this board.
some may feel that if a poster wants to express an opinion that is not in syc with the majority, they should not speak of it.if someone feels they have a valid criticism, i do think it is "healthy" to be able to express that opinion.
i am not referring to persons that seem to always complain about everything but i'm thinking of our not stifling a person.
Minimus,
Bradley, You know the answer---I just like asking questions. If I was in Simon's house and he asked me if I was comfortable, as a good host would, and it was very chilly in the house, I'd let him know. And I'd volunteer if the food was great that I REALLY enjoyed the meal. Now if Ang said, "Minimus, would you like some liver and onions, too," I'd say, "No thanks. I really wouldn't enjoy that but thanks for asking."......ok?
I agree. And, please don't get me wrong -- I have absolutely NOTHING against Simon or the mod's. In fact, I have lunch with one of them ever couple months or so.
But, just as you would let your host know how you feel in a kind way I will do the same: I think some of the moderating here has been a little heavy-handed AT TIMES. For instance, I recently called a poster who was obviously a troll and was making very creepy comments about tickling children a "moron." It was edited out. Personally, I think that's plain silly.
I also believe that feelings and pride have sometimes gotten in the way of clear thinking with regard certain posters. I know one person, for instance, who was deleted and I cannot for the life of me understand why. I think that is unfortunate, especially when I have yet to ever see someone "reinstated" on this board. (I'd like to say more but -- I'll be honest here -- am concerned if I do I'll be the next one to get the boot. There is just this slight uneasy feeling that I think a lot of people are starting to feel. But, I think it is entirely resolvable.)
Just my foolish opinion.
Bradley
Oh, and another topic which hasn't been discussed here: cabbage.
B.
i think some might get the impression that it's not right to express anything critical of this board.
some may feel that if a poster wants to express an opinion that is not in syc with the majority, they should not speak of it.if someone feels they have a valid criticism, i do think it is "healthy" to be able to express that opinion.
i am not referring to persons that seem to always complain about everything but i'm thinking of our not stifling a person.
Minimus,
I have to ask: If you are a guest of Simon -- as all of us are -- why are you the one asking this question? Shouldn't that be done by our host?
I don't mean to be confrontational, but you start a thread asking if we feel comfortable criticising this site, evidently something someone should be easy with. In your illustration this is tantamount to criticising Simon's "house." Don't you feel this is rather strange? Why would you even say this in "Simon's house" if that is what this really is?
I know, I know...I'm being testy. I am appreciative of the job Simon and the mod's do here, but I don't think the house = site parrallel is really fair.
Bradley
i think some might get the impression that it's not right to express anything critical of this board.
some may feel that if a poster wants to express an opinion that is not in syc with the majority, they should not speak of it.if someone feels they have a valid criticism, i do think it is "healthy" to be able to express that opinion.
i am not referring to persons that seem to always complain about everything but i'm thinking of our not stifling a person.
Question: Is the parallel between our being on this message board and being a "guest of Simon" really a good one? Has that illustration been taken a little too far?
B.
